About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
MSNBCW 27
LANGUAGE
English 27
Search Results 0 to 26 of about 27 (some duplicates have been removed)
the terrifying photo shopped secrets of president barack hussein obama. did you know his emotional name is hussein? the conspiracies about the president get even more conspiratorial than they have in years past. >>> we're beginning with a big deal, a story you will not see anywhere else, because it is an nbc news exclusive. nbc's national investigative correspondent michael isikoff has uncovered something that is not classified, but treated as one of the biggest secrets of this administration. it's something the administration has been fighting over with newspapers and with congress and with all different sorts of groups suing them who have been trying to contain what mike isikoff has gotten closer than anybody else to naming. and it is happening right in the midst of really big changes happening right now in national security in washington. today in washington, of course, was secretary of state john kerry's first day on the job. he was sworn in on friday after his confirmation hearing and his confirmation vote process that were frankly a breeze. in the end, the senate vote was nearly u
have president obama's back. he has given us everything we asked for, a really bold plan. he has taken his message to the public. progressives will show him we will get his back on this fight and creates an incentive system where he is bold on every single fight. we're going to be there getting his back every step of the way. >> adam green of, thank you so much. that's "the ed show" show. "the rachel maddow show" starts right now. good evening. >> good evening. and thanks to you at home for joining us this hour, where we have breaking news. breaking news about a story we have been covering in detail all this week. and frankly, for a lot longer than that. tonight for the first time, more than a year after its existence was first leaked to "the new york times" after rejecting multiple freedom of information act requests, which eventually became lawsuits demanding its release, after more than a year of refusing to officially either confirm or deny its existence, tonight the president of the united states has ordered release to congress his administration's legal reasoning for why the admi
. president obama will talk strategy with senate democrats today, looking to gain support for his ambitious second-term agenda that includes guns, immigration and the looming budget war. the president arrived in maryland in the last hour where he's going to spend the day in annapolis. it's his first chance to speak to senators directly about his proposed quick fix to avoiding the sequester with the acts about to fall in just a matter of weeks. now the sequester, which is a doomsday machine of $1.2 trillion in cuts, the pentagon would take the brunt of that blow with the rest of the pain coming to domestic programs. >> our economy right now is headed in the right direction. and it will stay that way as long as there aren't any more self-inflicted wounds coming out of washington. so let's keep on chipping away at this problem together, as democrats and republicans, to give our workers and our businesses the support that they need to thrive in the weeks and months ahead. >> the president's called for a fix of short-term spending cuts and tax reform hit a brick on capitol hill. politico reporti
with president obama and john brennan. you can realize they're only going to be there for three more years. this is the way warfare is going to be. this is a weapon. this is a flexible, very useful, valuable weapon. >> what's wrong with sticking the judgment of people around obama and not trusting the judgment of the value of people around dick cheney? >> if you give the power to this president, then you can expect the next president to have similar powers. i commend everybody with the yugs of drones and attacking not american. >> what's the difference between an american drone attack and a seal attack? are there less collateral damage? >> if you read the new york times this morning, it talks about instances. >> so what do you do? >> if you come -- what do you do? ? >> well, perhaps, in some cases, you have to put more of your own blood at risk. >> you're sitting here. what would you do if you're a president or commander in chief or your general for example, and we send in 20 guys, we're going to lose five or ten. the drones for days above them. and they see them as signals and messages of
's use of torture and for those controversial leaks reportedly from the obama white house. in his questionnaire for the senate committee, brennan admits he was interviewed about, quote, possible unauthorized disclosures of information to reporters about cyberattacks against iran and possible unauthorized disclosures of information to reporters about a foiled bomb plot tied to al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. let's bring in the political panel, chris anders, senior legislative counsel and michael isikoff. michael, a lot happened certainly since you broke that news of what was in this memo including this move by the white house. what do we make of at least what we're seeing right before bren anna nicole's confirmation hearing in regards to the white house's latest move here? >> well, first of all, it was an important step that the white house took because until last night, the official position of the administration is they couldn't even confirm or deny the existence of such a memo. in fact, they said that it's in and of itself was a classified matter so by putting out the stateme
. >>> the "news nation" following developing news. under fire for the delayed budget, president obama within the last hour urged congress to pass a short-term budget to replace those $1 trillion in automatic spending cuts known as sequester, the remarks hours after speaker boehner called on the white house and senate democrats for a plan to avoid the deep across the board cuts. >> the house on two occasions has passed a plan to replace the sequester. it's time for the senate democrats to do their work. it's time for the president to offer his ideas about how to replace the sequester. >> there is no reason that the jobs of thousands of americans who work in national security or education or clean energy not to mention the growth of the entire economy should be put in jeopardy just because folks in washington couldn't come together to eliminate a few special interest tax loopholes or government programs that we agree need some reform. >> our first read team notes that while republicans want to solely talk about the budget the white house does not want to be bogged down on one issue that in the
ahead of john brennan's confirmation hearing to head the cia, the obama administration's drone program is drawing new scrutiny from both sides of the aisle and raising big questions about just how far the government should go in targeted assassinations without oversight from congress or from the courts. joining me now for our daily fix, msnbc contributor and "usa today" washington bureau chief. chris, first to you, i don't think there is any big question so far as to whether or not john brennan is going to be confirmed at least going into the hearing, but this is a real debate now. because of michael isikoff breaking the story and finding that white paper, and discovering that the justice department had at least september that much to the hill, some members, the 11 senators and at least three the committee asking big questions about why there isn't more oversight. >> what's fascinating is when they announced the trio of nominations, john kerry at state, chuck hagel at defense and john brennan for cia, i remember being on the show and saying i think hagel will be the most controversial
along with that. >> you can have the highest regard for the people in the white house. president obama, brennan. but you can realize they're only going to be there for three more years. we're setting precedence. this is the way warfare is going to be. this is the way counterterrorism is going to be. this is a weapon. they make the point that this is a flexible, very useful, valuable weapon that -- >> what's wrong with trusting the judgment of people around obama and not trusting the judgment or the values of people around saying dick cheney? >> you can't take it back. >> if you give the power to -- if you give the power to this president, then you expect the next president to have more powers. so you need something to frame. and i would say the case about the american citizens is very kind of an outliar. it's going to happen from time to time. that's not the core of this. i commend everybody to read the front page story of "the new york times" about the use of drones -- >> let's go the difference between a drone attack and a s.e.a.l. attack? what's the difference? a manned and unmanned
the administration justifies the targeted killing of american citizens. the white house says president obama has directed the department of justice to brief members of the intelligence committees. the move comes after a bipartisan group of 11 senators led by democratic senator ron wyden of oregon called for more insight into the government's legal rationale for drone strikes against americans abroad. senator wyden said on twitter, "every american has the right to know when their government believes it's allowed to kill them." this followed the leaked white house memo obtained by nbc news this week detailing criteria required for such a strike. this is all unfolding before today's senate confirmation hearing for john brennan, nominated to be the next head of the cia. and andrea mitchell, i wonder if this could, in any way, get in the way of brennan again. >> well, this is so much in a state of flux right now. clearly, i mean, the president's called to senator wyden last night, so unusual to try to reassure him and try to ward off what could be a calamitous hearing today. the fact is that brennan
continued and robust ly expanded under president obama. just last month in his second inaugural address president obama called for an inlasting p does not require perpetual war, but that is what this administration has largely institutionalized. this week, michael isikoff got a hold of a secret department of justice memo which outlines the legal basis for the administration to use legal force in count terrorism tactics even against american citizens. this is the provocation for use of force and one that trumps constitutional protections and it goes further that the military can engage in a preemptive attack even without clear evidence that a specific p attack is eminent. while we can be sure that a mere territorial dispute will not lead our troops back into the trenches burk the trenches, but the explanation of what constitutes a preemptive strike, we are left of asking, what will get us out of war? and joining us is roulajabril, and professor of law at syracuse university, and the chairman of the project against unjust crimes to end humanity, and the editor of "time" magazine which is
and concerned libertarians. now as john brennan, the architect of the u.s. drone policy and president obama's mick to head the cia readies to testify this afternoon on capitol hill, calls for greater transparency and legal justification for the killings have increased. the outcry reached a crescendo on monday when nbc's michael isikoff obtained a leaked white pair from the government suggesting that the u.s. government can kill american set zenz overseas without any specific intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the u.s. the expansive legal framework set off alarm bells. >> every american has the right to know when their government believes it's allowed to kill them. i don't think that as one person said, that is too much to ask. >> the "new york times" wrote "it was disturbing to see the twisted logic of the administration's lawyers laid out in black and white. it brought back unwelcome memories of memos written for president george w. bush to justify illegal wiretapping, indefinite detention, kidnapping, abuse, and torture. "time's" writer david carr put it
for impeachment. didn't senator obama demand transparency and promise it in his own? the issues enumerated at this table, i'll go through again vis-a-vis this memo. talked about civilian deaths including children. this doesn't account for that. doesn't try to justify that or explain that. rules of engagement which i have said are necessary going forward to continue a drone policy. questions like are we at war when we employ drone strikes in yemen, for example? is that a war situation? would we consider pakistan declaring war on us if they advanced drone strikes on us? i think we would. this document basically says we can fire on a host nation with their consent or because they do not give it. that's pretty fuzzy. that's pretty vague. the third issue we have talked about is due process. and apparently we can completely subvert the constitution and kill americans without due process if their capture is quote/unquote infeasible and imminent threat. that's vague and easy to sort of get around. and fourth, the issue that i've also brought up is just the hypocrisy. this is fine and good under ob
a bit about the obama administration's secret program of targeted killing of suspected terrorists. a small number of those targeted and killed have been american citizens while some unconfirmed number of those killed in yelm, pakistan and elsewhere have been innocent civilians, mothers, children, young and old men in the wrong place at the wrong time. they have implement add rigorous screening process at the white house deciding who ends up on the list. the president approaches the program with solemnity and care and the policy has been efficient and effective in decimating al qaeda and other terrorist groups. it's been said, quote, the enemy is really, really struggling. these atakes have produced the broadest, deepest, and most rapid reduction in al qaeda senior leadership that we've seen in several years. my partner michael isikoff outfound a memo that outlines why they believe they have the legal thoort authority to use force. at thursday's confirmation hearings for his nomination to head up the cia, white house counterterrorism director raised questions about the memo and the
you're a huge fan of barack obama and you do think he's ethical and wise or whatever the words that jay carney used. obama is not going to be president forever. we're going to have new administrations, and obama has kind of solidified what bush and cheney put into place and that's going to be in the hands of other administrations in the future, and david is right. there are no checks on this. if this is so ethical, it's so wise, and it's so legal, then why don't you be honest and open about it and tell congress what you're doing so at least they can do it even if you're going to keep the people in the dark. >> thank you, gentlemen. >>> coming up, at least some members of congress are looking for bipartisan solutions on gun safety. yes, they are. stay with us. [ woman ] if you have the audacity to believe your financial advisor should focus on your long-term goals, not their short-term agenda. [ male announcer ] join the nearly 7 million investors who think like you do. face time and think time make a difference. at edward jones, it's how we make sense of investing. i've got a n
policies of the obama administration, not just the secretive drone strike but using the right to use it against american citizens. this came up in 2007 when a drone strike killed awlaki and kahne, both u.s. citizens and neither charged with a crime. and we have extra judicial killings by the u.s. government without any judicial review and any right of the citizen to argue his or her case in court. these are very sticky issues. the legal basis for these strikes has been kept a secret by the obama administration. you may remember we had huge fights back in the bush era about the legal memos for enhanced interrogation tactics, the so-called torture memos. ultimately they became public. this is viewed by some as an analogy for that, secret memos upon which huge u.s. government policies, with grave consequences are being made. we got a copy of this memo, which is not the olc memo, the office of legal council memo but a white paper, 16 page white paper that mirrors and tracks it and gives us much more detail about what the legal basis for these strikes are. >> you draw a great analogy with
and president obama releasing some records is a positive first step. but there's going to be a president after president obama. and who knows how that leader will handle these serious matters. there must be consistency from one administration to the next. even though i trust president obama. if we set a president now, are we going to live with that if the next president is someone we don't agree with? no matter the politics, that's the question we should think about. policy should be around the precedent we set. no president should be able to go unchecked. i was opposed to it under bush. i'm opposed to it now. i'm afraid for the future. we must watch this carefully. i'm a.m. sharpton, thanks for watching. "hardball" starts right now. >> defending the drones, let's play "hardball" ♪ >>> good evening. i'm michael smerconish in for chris matthews. secrets and spies. the man who is at the center of the national debate over the targeted killing of americans overseas has been in the hot seat on capitol hill. among other things, john brennan coordinates the kill list, and so his confirmation hearin
it much more difficult for us to respond to the crises in the world. >> president obama, his last campaign promise to the american people, the final debate, this is what he said about sequester. >> first of all, sequester is not something that i proposed. it's something that congress has proposed. it will not happen. >> he said it will not happen. you're preparing for it to happen. it seems paul ryan was just on "meet the press" last week and he said it's more likely to happen than not. in your view, is this going to happen? >> in a world of responsible politics, it should not happen. >> ok. we don't live in that world right now. are you assuming it's going to happen? >> look, we've got to plan for that possibility. because there are so many members that are saying we're going to let it take place. but i have to tell you, it is irresponsible. for it to happen. i mean, why in god's name would members of congress elected by the american people take a step that would badly damage our national defense? but more importantly, undermine the support for our men and women in uniform. why would you
of it. i hear often from radio listeners who sense a hypocrisy in that they see the obama administration being critical of harsh interrogation methods but going along with the drone program. is there some inherent hypocrisy in that? >> well, there was an interesting statistic in the first year of the obama administration. i think -- or perhaps over the first couple of years in the administration. he authorized more drone strikes and more people were killed in drone strikes that he authorized than the total number of people that had before passed through guantanamo bay. that crystallizes that hypocrisy people talk about. >> you could also argue that we know drone strikes work. you know, the jury still seems like it's out with regard to harsh interrogation methods, but drone strikes work. >> in terms of the morality, you know, if you determine that there are threats out there, there are bad guys that you need to take off the battlefield but you can't go there, you can't go to pakistan, you can't go to certain places, then what alternative do you have if you can't capture them? in other wor
that were attached to the affordable care act but not part of obama care. they were just in the same bill to get funded. and that money would have helped people transition out of nursing homes and be able to be cared for in their own homes with their kids, their parents or elderly people with their children. and scott said no way, and the legislature also said we're not taking it because they perceived it to be as part of the affordable care act. >> so when you look at florida, is it fair to use it as a case study for the tea party system or were there other factors here as well? >> i think it's a fair case. i mean, florida has been a fairly republican and conservative state for a while. but in 2010, they elected scott and they also had a super majority of republicans in the state legislature that gave them quite a bit of control. and there are a lot of people in the legislature who were aligned with the tea party. it's one of a few states in the country where they've really followed through on a lot of those promises to cut spending, cut taxes, and to try to shrink the size of government
Search Results 0 to 26 of about 27 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)